As the presentment agency concedes, the court's finding was not based on legally sufficient evidence. The evidence established only that before and after the incident appellant and another were in the company of the person who robbed the victim; no evidence was adduced that appellant "solicit[ed], request[ed], command[ed], importune[d], or intentionally aid[ed]" (Penal Law § 20.00) the commission of the crime. As in Matter of Lamar McL. ( 19 AD3d 234), appellant's mere presence in the vicinity of the crime was not sufficient.